Add RAS to CCPP, update SHOC and MG2/3

[SMoorthi-emc]

Dom and Ligia,
I think it is time to merge my physics branch SM_Jan2020 back to the master.
This version has many updates including RAS, and updated SHOC and MG2/3 related routines.
In addition to testing as standalone FV3, I have also run RAS/MG3/SHOC combination in the Fv3-MOM6-CICE5-WW3 coupled model mode.
Thanks
Moorthi

[climbfuji]

Hi Moorthi, please see my email that I just sent to you for further explanation. Thanks!

[climbfuji]

Associated PRs:
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44
#378

[SMoorthi-emc]

Dom,    I am trying to bring physical constants to RAS argument, but I don't know the definition of "triple point temperature" "con_ttp" and specific heat of solid "con_csol" defined in physcons.F90. (this is part of the reason I used the module physcons".  No0ne of the "meta" tables are using these variables. Thanks Moorthi

…

On 1/24/20 7:36 PM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: Associated PRs: NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44 <NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44> #378 <#378> — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYR3FSEFP443UMNI3MDQ7OCPLA5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJ4P3XY#issuecomment-578354655>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYTISBQLKFY3VVFD2ODQ7OCPLANCNFSM4KHW5MEA>.

-- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel:(301)683-3718

[SMoorthi-emc]

I found the triple point.  Only thing that I need is for "con_csol". Moorthi

…

On 1/27/20 9:09 AM, Shrinivas Moorthi wrote: Dom,    I am trying to bring physical constants to RAS argument, but I don't know the definition of "triple point temperature" "con_ttp" and specific heat of solid "con_csol" defined in physcons.F90. (this is part of the reason I used the module physcons".  No0ne of the "meta" tables are using these variables. Thanks Moorthi On 1/24/20 7:36 PM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: > > Associated PRs: > NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44 <NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44> > #378 <#378> > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYR3FSEFP443UMNI3MDQ7OCPLA5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJ4P3XY#issuecomment-578354655>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYTISBQLKFY3VVFD2ODQ7OCPLANCNFSM4KHW5MEA>. > -- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel:(301)683-3718

[climbfuji]

I found the triple point.  Only thing that I need is for "con_csol".
Moorthi
On 1/27/20 9:09 AM, Shrinivas Moorthi wrote:

Dom,
   I am trying to bring physical constants to RAS argument, but I
don't know the definition of "triple point temperature"
"con_ttp" and specific heat of solid "con_csol" defined in physcons.F90.
(this is part of the reason I used the module physcons".  No0ne of the
"meta" tables are using these variables.
Thanks
Moorthi
On 1/24/20 7:36 PM, Dom Heinzeller wrote:

Associated PRs:
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44 NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44
#378 #378

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/NCAR/ccpp-physics/pull/378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYR3FSEFP443UMNI3MDQ7OCPLA5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJ4P3XY#issuecomment-578354655,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYTISBQLKFY3VVFD2ODQ7OCPLANCNFSM4KHW5MEA.

--
Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi
Research Meteorologist
Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch
Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction
5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA
Tel:(301)683-3718

I admit this is (unnecessarily) complicated. For "historical" reasons, the constants in physcons.F90 are passed to CCPP through GFS_typedefs.F90. Thus: in GFS_typdefs.F90, change line 11 from

                                           con_sbc, con_tice, cimin, con_p0, rhowater

to

                                           con_sbc, con_tice, cimin, con_p0, rhowater,     &
                                           con_csol

and add the following entry to GFS_typedefs.meta just below the [con_cliq] entry:

[con_csol]
  standard_name = specific_heat_of_ice_at_constant_pressure
  long_name = specific heat of ice at constant pressure
  units = J kg-1 K-1
  dimensions = ()
  type = real
  kind = kind_phys

[SMoorthi-emc]

Thanks. Moorthi

…

On 1/27/20 9:45 AM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: I found the triple point.  Only thing that I need is for "con_csol". Moorthi On 1/27/20 9:09 AM, Shrinivas Moorthi wrote: Dom,    I am trying to bring physical constants to RAS argument, but I don't know the definition of "triple point temperature" "con_ttp" and specific heat of solid "con_csol" defined in physcons.F90. (this is part of the reason I used the module physcons". No0ne of the "meta" tables are using these variables. Thanks Moorthi On 1/24/20 7:36 PM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: Associated PRs: NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44 <NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44> NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44 <NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44> #378 <#378> #378 <#378> — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub #378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYR3FSEFP443UMNI3MDQ7OCPLA5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJ4P3XY#issuecomment-578354655, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYTISBQLKFY3VVFD2ODQ7OCPLANCNFSM4KHW5MEA. -- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel:(301)683-3718 I admit this is (unnecessarily) complicated. For "historical" reasons, the constants in |physcons.F90| are passed to CCPP through |GFS_typedefs.F90|. Thus: in |GFS_typdefs.F90|, change line 11 from |con_sbc, con_tice, cimin, con_p0, rhowater | to |con_sbc, con_tice, cimin, con_p0, rhowater, & con_csol | and add the following entry to GFS_typedefs.meta just below the |[con_cliq]| entry: |[con_csol] standard_name = specific_heat_of_ice_at_constant_pressure long_name = specific heat of ice at constant pressure units = J kg-1 K-1 dimensions = () type = real kind = kind_phys | — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYSJEX2U56JBNT3XOWDQ73XRJA5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJ7YHXY#issuecomment-578782175>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYVLE6GQUBAYSY3SFOTQ73XRJANCNFSM4KHW5MEA>.

-- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel:(301)683-3718

[climbfuji]

Coming back to the long_name issue. Maybe our original wording was misleading (but I don't think it was wrong):

moist (dry+vapor, no condensates) mixing ratio of cloud water (condensate)

This means mass of cloud water (condensate) divided up the mass of (dry air plus vapor, without condensates). An alternative suggestion, hopefully clearer, is to use:

ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates)

[SMoorthi-emc]

Dom,     I have updated my branch with all the recommended code changes.  It compiles. (I am testing in coupled mode). Thanks Moorthi

…

On 1/27/20 12:41 PM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: May be something need to be changed in framework? … <#> I don't think so. Need to import it in GFS_typedefs.F90, add it to GFS_typedefs.meta and then you should be able to use it in RAS. Don't waste too much time on this, I can check out your branch once you updated it and try to fix it). — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYXHNMRVNPKTAX4OBGDQ74ME3A5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEKAMV6Q#issuecomment-578865914>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYTNVAVMVWSCI5GCAUTQ74ME3ANCNFSM4KHW5MEA>.

-- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel:(301)683-3718

[ligiabernardet]

On 1/27/20 11:19 AM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: Coming back to the |long_name| issue. Maybe our original wording was misleading (but I don't think it was wrong): |moist (dry+vapor, no condensates) mixing ratio of cloud water (condensate) | This means mass of cloud water (condensate) divided up the mass of (dry air plus vapor, without condensates). An alternative suggestion, hopefully clearer, is to use: |ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates)|

|yes, this is more precise, but that is the definition of mixing ratio of cloud condensate (unless it is specific condensate).|

Through our experience in supporting CCPP users and developers, we learned that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding with respect to the meaning of mixing ratio, especially mixing ratio of condensates. For that reason, I recommend erring on the side of being extra clear. I suggest the following long name be used:
ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates)

[SMoorthi-emc]

That is ok with me Moorrhi

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 28, 2020, at 4:48 PM, ligiabernardet ***@***.***> wrote: On 1/27/20 11:19 AM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: Coming back to the |long_name| issue. Maybe our original wording was misleading (but I don't think it was wrong): |moist (dry+vapor, no condensates) mixing ratio of cloud water (condensate) | This means mass of cloud water (condensate) divided up the mass of (dry air plus vapor, without condensates). An alternative suggestion, hopefully clearer, is to use: |ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates)| |yes, this is more precise, but that is the definition of mixing ratio of cloud condensate (unless it is specific condensate).| Through our experience in supporting CCPP users and developers, we learned that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding with respect to the meaning of mixing ratio, especially mixing ratio of condensates. For that reason, I recommend erring on the side of being extra clear. I suggest the following long name be used: ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates) — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[SMoorthi-emc]

Although currently moist density Includes only dry+vapor, nothing prevents anyone from using total density. Moorthi

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 28, 2020, at 5:18 PM, Shrinivas Moorthi - NOAA Federal ***@***.***> wrote: That is ok with me Moorrhi Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 28, 2020, at 4:48 PM, ligiabernardet ***@***.***> wrote: > > On 1/27/20 11:19 AM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: Coming back to the |long_name| issue. Maybe our original wording was misleading (but I don't think it was wrong): |moist (dry+vapor, no condensates) mixing ratio of cloud water (condensate) | This means mass of cloud water (condensate) divided up the mass of (dry air plus vapor, without condensates). An alternative suggestion, hopefully clearer, is to use: |ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates)| > > |yes, this is more precise, but that is the definition of mixing ratio of cloud condensate (unless it is specific condensate).| > > Through our experience in supporting CCPP users and developers, we learned that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding with respect to the meaning of mixing ratio, especially mixing ratio of condensates. For that reason, I recommend erring on the side of being extra clear. I suggest the following long name be used: > ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates) > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[climbfuji]

@SMoorthi-emc, I created two PRs for your branches SM_Jan102020 for ccpp-physics and fv3atm:

SMoorthi-emc#1
SMoorthi-emc/fv3atm#1

Please have a look. For the MG3 scidoc, I found it best to compare it with a proper diff tool (e.g. meld) on my machine instead of the GitHub diff view. You will see that I only added in existing documentation in doxygen format, nothing else. If you merge those, your PRs will automatically be updated.

[SMoorthi-emc]

Dom, Thanks. My experience with github is limited. When you say I merge my PR with your updates, I assume I merge in my working directory and recommit right? I do not know how to do this on github itself. I will do this tomorrow morning. Moorthi

…

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 7:40 PM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote: @SMoorthi-emc <https://github.com/SMoorthi-emc>, I created two PRs for your branches SM_Jan102020 for ccpp-physics and fv3atm: SMoorthi-emc#1 <SMoorthi-emc#1> SMoorthi-emc/fv3atm#1 <SMoorthi-emc/fv3atm#1> Please have a look. For the MG3 scidoc, I found it best to compare it with a proper diff tool (e.g. meld) on my machine instead of the GitHub diff view. You will see that I only added in existing documentation in doxygen format, nothing else. If you merge those, your PRs will automatically be updated. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYUDV3BFN4WPN3Q3WIDRANXQZA5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEKNCT3Y#issuecomment-580528623>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYUPZJXWHYLUUIEVTE3RANXQZANCNFSM4KHW5MEA> .

-- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel: (301)683-3718 e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (301) 683-3718 Fax: (301) 683-3718

[climbfuji]

Hi Moorthi, no, it is much easier than that. When you open the two pull requests I created on GitHub, you can find a "merge pull request" button towards the bottom of the page. You can simply click on it and your code is update (on GitHub). Afterwards, you can update your local copy by either checking out the code to a new directory or refreshing an existing directory. The latter step is a little more involved. I know that Eric (Aligo) and Chunxi have done that in the past, they could help you getting started. Also, Jun and Dusan and all other EMC code managers are experts on GitHub.

[SMoorthi-emc]

Dom,     Other day I had updated MG3 to include the doxygen commands, but forgot to commit that version! Is there a doxygen command "!v"? if not that could be a typo. Thanks Moorthi

…

On 1/30/20 7:40 PM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: @SMoorthi-emc <https://github.com/SMoorthi-emc>, I created two PRs for your branches SM_Jan102020 for ccpp-physics and fv3atm: SMoorthi-emc#1 <SMoorthi-emc#1> SMoorthi-emc/fv3atm#1 <SMoorthi-emc/fv3atm#1> Please have a look. For the MG3 scidoc, I found it best to compare it with a proper diff tool (e.g. meld) on my machine instead of the GitHub diff view. You will see that I only added in existing documentation in doxygen format, nothing else. If you merge those, your PRs will automatically be updated. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYUDV3BFN4WPN3Q3WIDRANXQZA5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEKNCT3Y#issuecomment-580528623>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYUPZJXWHYLUUIEVTE3RANXQZANCNFSM4KHW5MEA>.

-- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel:(301)683-3718

[climbfuji]

Hi Moorthi, !v is not a doxygen command but a typo from my side. Sorry. Do you want to fix this when you update the code next time? Or should I?

[SMoorthi-emc]

Dom,    I already merged the code and checked out.  I could just correct and commit back. I was able compile and run in the coupled mode. Moorthi

…

On 1/31/20 9:55 AM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: Hi Moorthi, !v is not a doxygen command but a typo from my side. Sorry. Do you want to fix this when you update the code next time? Or should I? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#378?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALLVRYTLUBJM7HK5PCH3PG3RAQ3XPA5CNFSM4KHW5MEKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEKO4USA#issuecomment-580766280>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYSP3YK76SAU422GKELRAQ3XPANCNFSM4KHW5MEA>.

-- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel:(301)683-3718

[climbfuji]

Dom,    I already merged the code and checked out.  I could just correct and commit back. I was able compile and run in the coupled mode. Moorthi
…

Thanks, that would be great.

[climbfuji]

I revisited the PR and looked at the new commits. This PR looks good to me and can be merged, pending a successful pass of the regression tests in PROD mode and REPRO mode (for the latter against the IPD REPRO baseline). If this requires changes from dtc/develop to be brought back to master first, then we need to insert a step in between. @junwang-noaa @DusanJovic-NOAA.

[junwang-noaa]

Associated PRs:
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44
#378
ufs-weather-model#72